RugbyRebels

Freddo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Agreed. I've been saying exactly that.

Size is not everything in any position but I really do not favour a SH who can be swatted away nonchalantly. I still don't dislike Spencer. I rate Uren. Mitchell looks worth a bit of perseverance. Quirke, once fit, should be first choice.

I'd forgive him being any size if his passing was just accurate. I just want us to have a Kyran Bracken who gets to every ruck fast and gets the ball in front of the 10's hands every single time - don't care if he can run or tackle or anything, just gets quick, clean, accurate service.

Puja

I don't watch enough Premiership Rugby to know but is there an England SH like that?

Mitchell's pretty close. Quirke's got decent service as well (although injured). If you're looking for service, they're probably top of the pile as far as Prem goes.

At this risk of outright derision, I'd say Youngs is probably a name worth mentioning, certainly above Randall and Care. I know he has regular howlers, but he has got an absolute bullet of a pass across a long distance when on song. There's no-one else in the Prem that could deliver the front-line-out-ball, pass-to-crashing-12 that England used to do when Borthwick was there.

Puja

In fairness, Eddie almost certainly would have picked Quirke had he been fit.

I don’t get why Randall is ahead of Mitchell though, particularly not after last weekend.

Scrumhead wrote: I don’t get why Randall is ahead of Mitchell though, particularly not after last weekend.

Yep, mega head scratcher. Jones has weird opinions on no9s.

I’ve seen too many games where I’d associate Ben Youngs with the word ‘dither’ to agree with that one, unless you’re talking very early in his career. Agree Randall has dropped off. Quirke had one good game against SA before injury? Lots of potential but plenty to prove of course.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:
I thought Ludlam was our best player against Scotland until his injury. Abrasive carrier, back-up lineout option, genuinely comfortable and effective across all three back row positions... ideal squad man, in other words. Basically he's the player Wales Online always try to convince us Josh Navidi is.

I agree - Ludlam gets a bad rap on here, but I don't know I've ever seen him let England down. Might not be as exciting in a single area as one of the other fashionable options, but I think he's a better all around rugby player than most give him credit for.

Puja

Ludlam has improved hugely in the last season or so- his puppy dog routine has calmed, his ball presentation and decision making improved. Boyd has made a difference eventually I'd suggest.

Another season and I would bet he'll be one of those 'glue' back rowers in the vein of Shields at Wasps. Just getting shit done.

I actually enjoyed his puppyesque enthusiasm at the time. If memory serves he was capped in the aftermath of the 2018 slump and it was pretty refreshing to see someone tearing after everything. That said, I agree with the implication that it wasn't hugely effective.

Ludlam is fine, but not near the top of back row picks for me. Energy and enthusiasm versus positive outcome ratio not as high as lots of others in my view. Understand it’s not a universally held view, but I’d not be inconsolable if he wasn’t in that squad.

His stats are pretty impressive aren’t they?

I like Ludlam. I just don’t think he really has a point of difference. For example, if it’s a straight choice between Earl and Ludlam, the former has the edge in terms of attacking threat without losing much in work rate or defence.

You only really hear about tackles and turnovers in the stats that are bandied around. Ludlam not near the top in either, but it doesn’t paint the whole picture.

I think he's a good man in the 20 shirt, at least for now. All being well 6. Curry 7. Willis would be my starting pick. However well Earl plays, until he stops being 2018-Itoje-on-crack when his side wins a free kick for a wonky throw, I'm not interested in seeing him in any context.

Interesting. I always liked Underhill and not just for his crazy tackling, though that was nice. I remember that try against NZ that never was. He seemed good to me. We seem to have a lot of potential flankers. No 8 … presumably Billy must come back into the mix when he’s fit.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
Randall honestly I don't think is even the best 9 in Bristol this season

Agreed. I've been saying exactly that.

Size is not everything in any position but I really do not favour a SH who can be swatted away nonchalantly. I still don't dislike Spencer. I rate Uren. Mitchell looks worth a bit of perseverance. Quirke, once fit, should be first choice.

I'd forgive him being any size if his passing was just accurate. I just want us to have a Kyran Bracken who gets to every ruck fast and gets the ball in front of the 10's hands every single time - don't care if he can run or tackle or anything, just gets quick, clean, accurate service.

Puja

Peter Stringer is past the three year rule. Who knows - he might have an English grandparent. Worth checking. And he's still only 44.

As a pithy criticism of Jones's SH development policy, that takes some beating.

Why give Randall such a long run when not properly trying Robson and Spencer, takes a bit of understanding, for example.

Come RWC time, I'd not be surprised if Randall is nowhere to be seen. Mind you, I'd not be shocked if Smith goes the same way, not that I want it.

badback wrote:Interesting. I always liked Underhill and not just for his crazy tackling, though that was nice. I remember that try against NZ that never was. He seemed good to me. We seem to have a lot of potential flankers. No 8 … presumably Billy must come back into the mix when he’s fit.

Billy is back in the squad so I’m assuming you missed the announcement.

Underhill’s defence is his point of difference, but the other aspects of his game are decent too. He cuts some decent lines and is a more capable link player than he’s given credit for.

Slightly off topic, but amidst Sunday’s horror show, Curry had some nice moments where little pop passes or offloads allowed us to keep more continuity in attack. I’d like to see him doing more of that than taking contact all the time.

Scrumhead wrote:

badback wrote:Interesting. I always liked Underhill and not just for his crazy tackling, though that was nice. I remember that try against NZ that never was. He seemed good to me. We seem to have a lot of potential flankers. No 8 … presumably Billy must come back into the mix when he’s fit.

Billy is back in the squad so I’m assuming you missed the announcement.

Underhill’s defence is his point of difference, but the other aspects of his game are decent too. He cuts some decent lines and is a more capable link player than he’s given credit for.

Slightly off topic, but amidst Sunday’s horror show, Curry had some nice moments where little pop passes or offloads allowed us to keep more continuity in attack. I’d like to see him doing more of that than taking contact all the time.

Interesting comments on Curry. Glancing down your post, I initially thought you were referring to Billy on Saturday.

Oakboy wrote:As a pithy criticism of Jones's SH development policy, that takes some beating.

Why give Randall such a long run when not properly trying Robson and Spencer, takes a bit of understanding, for example.

Come RWC time, I'd not be surprised if Randall is nowhere to be seen. Mind you, I'd not be shocked if Smith goes the same way, not that I want it.

What makes you say that? Goal kicking aside*, Smith has been one of our few bright spots in the last year or so. Having Farrell at 12 solves the goal kicking problem And the fact that we have no actual 12s. Not sure what removing Smith would achieve?

*Really not sure what’s going on here. His kicking has really taken a nose dive this season. Previously it was good, now it’s an outright weakness that has cost Quins on a couple of occasions (missed kicks against Montpellier for example).

Re. Curry - there were 2 or 3 moments that stood out. One of those was in the build up to May’s try. There was another off the back of a failed Barbarians lineout I think where he beat the first man and then passed when I expected him to just take contact. Nothing amazing, but notable because they suggest that the penny might be dropping a bit and he should revert back to more link play (he lost his way a bit on this IMO).

Scrumhead wrote:

badback wrote:Interesting. I always liked Underhill and not just for his crazy tackling, though that was nice. I remember that try against NZ that never was. He seemed good to me. We seem to have a lot of potential flankers. No 8 … presumably Billy must come back into the mix when he’s fit.

Billy is back in the squad so I’m assuming you missed the announcement.

Underhill’s defence is his point of difference, but the other aspects of his game are decent too. He cuts some decent lines and is a more capable link player than he’s given credit for.

Slightly off topic, but amidst Sunday’s horror show, Curry had some nice moments where little pop passes or offloads allowed us to keep more continuity in attack. I’d like to see him doing more of that than taking contact all the time.

Agree wholeheartedly on Curry. He’s bulked up so much and so often been asked to do the hard yards, especially when at no8, that he’s gone away from the more subtle parts of his game. Jones keeps mentioning the hard and fast tracks in Aus so hopefully we’ll get to see more of it.

Everyone is surprised about Mitchell but even his biggest fans seem to be saying he is done fitness wise around 50minutes so to me that's probably what Eddie wants from him. Improve fitness and he's in.

I've not watched a lot of Premier rugby this year, but there seemed to be a some chat about Mitchell's fitness in the lead up to the Saints v Tigers semi final. I would of thought if it was potentially a weakness at domestic level, then it's way off where it needs to be for an international level.

I guess then it's deciding if it's more beneficial to tour and see the standard he needs to get at, or if a full pre season would be more beneficial?

Blandy wrote:I've not watched a lot of Premier rugby this year, but there seemed to be a some chat about Mitchell's fitness in the lead up to the Saints v Tigers semi final. I would of thought if it was potentially a weakness at domestic level, then it's way off where it needs to be for an international level.

I guess then it's deciding if it's more beneficial to tour and see the standard he needs to get at, or if a full pre season would be more beneficial?

Northampton play at a super high tempo. Mitchell isn't the only player of theirs that fades badly, as a side they tend to concede points in the second half of games. The lost the semi final playoff game on that basis as after 55 minutes the game was all about Tigers who ended up easing to victory. Mitchell gets highlighted as he's the heartbeat of the side. I'm not sure a) England will play at the same tempo so it probably won't matter and b) England change their scrum half on 50/55 minutes normally so it's not like at Saints where there isn't another player at Mitchell's level to come on.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:As a pithy criticism of Jones's SH development policy, that takes some beating.

Why give Randall such a long run when not properly trying Robson and Spencer, takes a bit of understanding, for example.

Come RWC time, I'd not be surprised if Randall is nowhere to be seen. Mind you, I'd not be shocked if Smith goes the same way, not that I want it.

What makes you say that? Goal kicking aside*, Smith has been one of our few bright spots in the last year or so. Having Farrell at 12 solves the goal kicking problem And the fact that we have no actual 12s. Not sure what removing Smith would achieve?

Smith is there to potentially bring an extra attacking dimension to England. If he can't do that then Eddie may well revert to the superior organisation skills of George Ford. From Eddie's point of view he's got a couple of years to get Smith up to the level we need and working in the structure, if not Ford can come in and take the reigns and deliver as that's what he does.

Smith was great in the AIs. Started the 6N well but his form nose dived over the course of the 6N, his performance Vs France was abysmal. Excuses about there being no 12 isn't really good enough considering the crap sandwich backs selections Ford was given and expected to turn into Michelin Star cuisine. I think Smith will turn it on this summer with Farrell there to oversee the organisational side of things and things will improve, Farrell is on good form currently but as we all know has limitations. The Baabaas game highlighted just how desperate England are for someone to exert a degree of control over the game, it wasn't just Smith as Atkinson didn't help and both scrum halfs turned into woeful performances.

FKAS wrote:

Blandy wrote:I've not watched a lot of Premier rugby this year, but there seemed to be a some chat about Mitchell's fitness in the lead up to the Saints v Tigers semi final. I would of thought if it was potentially a weakness at domestic level, then it's way off where it needs to be for an international level.

I guess then it's deciding if it's more beneficial to tour and see the standard he needs to get at, or if a full pre season would be more beneficial?

Northampton play at a super high tempo. Mitchell isn't the only player of theirs that fades badly, as a side they tend to concede points in the second half of games. The lost the semi final playoff game on that basis as after 55 minutes the game was all about Tigers who ended up easing to victory. Mitchell gets highlighted as he's the heartbeat of the side. I'm not sure a) England will play at the same tempo so it probably won't matter and b) England change their scrum half on 50/55 minutes normally so it's not like at Saints where there isn't another player at Mitchell's level to come on.

I suppose you can look at it the other way however and ask what happens if the starting 9 gets crocked in the opening minute of the game and Mitchell has to go the distance? It does seem odd to me that his fitness appears such an issue - surely he must be training to get fitter and more accustomed to the way Saints play, and if he's not what are the coaching staff playing at and not just with him but with the whole squad?

Going to stick up for Harry Randall as I feel he's being written off far too early; he's a young player in a rough spot of form but he fits the game plan and tempo England are aiming for. His speed of service is still better than most and thankfully he's not done anything stupid like 'work on his kicking game' so he can just fall back on hoisting the ball in the air: box kicks are always more fun when you're watching them from behind the sofa.

England are trying to play super fast though, and super fast at international level, let alone prem level. Yes, Saints really push the pace, but even if England only match that (ignoring the intensity for everything, defence included goes up) Mitchell still cannot take it.

Virtually every other top quality international, regardless of position, can do 80 minutes at prem level, including the front row, and do it pretty damn well.

Post above was obviously the kiss of death for poor Hazza if my Atkinson defence is anything to go by. I comment over on the Roar quite a bit and interestingly a lot of the people on there seem to think England are going to kick the leather off the ball, and Rennie has mentioned that they'll probably kick a lot too, because of the Premiership final. I just don't see how anyone can look at a side where the two 9s in the 23 are pretty much guaranteed to be Care and Randall and the 10 is odds on to be Marcus Smith and think 'yeah, they're not going to be looking to play any rugby.' Maybe it'll work in England's favour if the expect a kickfest and all of a sudden Randall is charging about like a headless chicken.

Randall's real strength is his running/breaking game which can be electric. He does spot gaps and does have the pace to exploit them. Problem is that at international those gaps are few and far between and defenders a little more tuned in. His passing has improved but he still throws too many that arent quite on the money, while his kicking game can be a bit erratic.

Mitchells fitness is obviously an issue, and one that looks to be holding him back as his game is pretty much top drawer. I'm not quite sure why there is an issue as really pro players should have the required level of fitness as a given.

Care's inclusion is a reflection that Jones doesnt trust the younger players and wants some experienced cover.